Post navigation

Review of Death and the Civil War

I would like to take this opportunity to remind you all that American Experience on PBS will be airing a documentary by Ric Burns (younger brother of filmmaker Ken Burns) entitled Death and the Civil War on Tuesday, September 18 at 8:00PM Eastern Time. The airing is timely, as it will be just after the 150th anniversary of the bloodiest single-day battle in American history with the Battle of Antietam on September 17.

This film, based upon Drew Gilpin Faust’s landmark work This Republic of Suffering: Death and the American Civil War (2008), illustrated how the Civil War changed how Americans on both sides of the conflict perceived death. Prior to the war, influenced by the religious revival of the Second Great Awakening, people believed in the concept of a “good death”, which involved dying at home, surrounded by loved ones, at peace and ready to go, and possibly and offering of last words to friends and family. This death was rooted in Christian tradition emerging in the nation through the early 19th century, where a new belief in a corporeal heaven, gained wide acceptance by the eve of war. This belief held that the deceased will gain a renewed body upon entering heaven and will reunite with loved ones who passed on before them, as well as the surviving relatives and friends when they die, with all living in everlasting peace and harmony with God.

As the war’s cruel reality shattered notions of a short, relatively bloodless conflict, Americans faced a new concept of death, as hundreds, and soon thousands, of young men were slaughtered in their prime, unable to enjoy the tranquility and dignity of a “good death”. Soldiers soon adapted to this changing circumstance and created the same conditions, in a modified fashion, for their dying comrades. The men were surrounded by photographs of loved ones, their army friends, and were able, when possible, die in relative peace. The deceased’s comrades also took on the unenviable task of notifying loved ones of the demise of the soldier, as well as arranging for shipment of effects and, if able, the body.

This documentary did an outstanding job of analyzing the harsh situation facing the nation in the early years of the war, that stands in stark contrast to how our nation treats the war dead today. Before and during the early years of the war, the federal government did not bear responsibility for identifying, accounting for, and treating its war dead. The result was that many dead were not identified initially, being buried in graves marked “Unknown”. Further, the government had no way of effective notification of casualties, with relatives relying upon the casualty reports in local papers, which could be inaccurate, creating increased anxiety among people as to the fate of their loved one serving, whether they were dead or not. Death was exacerbated by the lack of an ambulance corps, preventing early evacuation of wounded, which caused many to linger on the battlefield, dying of their wounds, without the comfort of the “good death”.

The film revolved around several themes: dying, burial, emotions around death, memorializing, identifying, and slavery. Each of these themes was well treated. Slavery was quite interesting, as the African-American experience with death was quite different through the horrors of slavery, which created a higher mortality possibility for them than whites. They created their own concept of the “good death”, which involved dying in the struggle for freedom. What was interesting to consider was that the historians involved in the film argued that contraband camps, where escaped slaves were initially housed, represented one of the first American examples of refugee camps, where conditions were quite harsh and fostered a higher mortality.

Beyond the overall content of the documentary, there were several things that stood out for me in this piece. One was the early mention of the casualty figure of 750,000, which is based upon new research that appeared in the journal Civil War History (December 2011), that is still gaining acceptance in the scholarly community and will take years to gain full recognition. The use of the figure will go far in terms of generating wider acceptance of the new calculations of just how many died in the war.

In addition to the use of new casualty figures, the story of 19th century methods of embalming and the role photographers played in bringing the savagery of death on the battlefield to Americans’ homes. Further, commemorating the dead, both through establishing national cemeteries and creating Memorial Day (on both sides of the Mason-Dixon) was an important subject. It was quite interesting to consider that without the Civil War, we likely would not have the system of national cemeteries, let alone an accounting of our war dead, at least as we know it. The story of Charleston blacks burying deceased Union POW’s from the racetrack prison camp and leading a commemoration ceremony and parade with Union forces in early May 1865 represented one of the earliest occurrences of what we know as Memorial Day.

With an all-star cast of historians and commentators, including Drew Gilpin Faust, Vincent Brown, David W. Blight, and George Will among others, Ric Burns has crafted a masterful documentary in the vein of his brother’s The Civil War. It combines the use of photographs, filmed scenes, and stirring narration, including powerful and emotional examples from the primary sources of the war, the writings of the people experiencing the war themselves. While Faust’s book is an important read and I urge everyone to read it, Death and the Civil War is a must-see documentary that illustrates the transformative effect of the war on our nation in the midst of its 150th anniversary.

About Daniel Sauerwein

I am a graduate student in History at the University of North Dakota pursuing my PhD in History with a minor in Geography. My primary historical interests are military history, specifically early US and the Civil War.

5 thoughts on “Review of Death and the Civil War”

Watching the show right now have always been very interested in the civil war……..Negroes were not called African American back then.. You are way too political to put that in a civil war show. I am White with European and American Indian decent. My best friend is Jamaican….I have many Jamaican Haitian and American black friends….as well as those from the Bahamas and Trinadad…Just think this was wrong for a civil war show.

While I appreciate comments, I am a bit confused as to where you are going with yours. I used the term African-American, as did the show, because it is using modern terminology in the interviews and narration. Having watched The Civil War several times, I can tell you that they use period terms (Negro, n—-r, etc.), where appropriate (i.e. quoting from primary sources written at the time that used such language).

Not sure how it makes me political to use commonly accepted terminology used today when discussing a topic. I don’t agree with censoring Mark Twain’s use of the n-word in Huckleberry Finn, as it was written at a time when such language was common. However, I am not going to use such language when writing today, again, unless I am quoting a primary source, because it is not appropriate by our standards.

That said, I do hope that you enjoyed the documentary, despite the issue around terminology.

For that matter, not all people of the Negro race are “African” in ancestry. I think it’s a bit of a conundrum and as far as I know, the jury is still out on how to properly assign a designation of race/culture.

I just watched this program and found it fascinating! I am usually interested in earlier colonial times, but the change in views of death during such a cultural change in society pulled me in. My interests lie in physical anthropology of colonial slave graves, although I’m not in the field. (That’s my dream job!) I was also impressed with Vincent Brown and his interviews.

I will definitely look forward to reading the book this show was based on, as well as furthering my knowledge on the points made.

Part of this documentary degenerated into the usual Federal apologetic. There were statements made that slavery would have gone on in perpetuity and not the North won, and in another a long tirade about how the cruelty of slavery in humans being whipped and burned to death can only end in blood. These are just factually not true, the atrocities yes North and South, but slavery ended in North when it no longer became a viable financial enterprise. Also there was input from abolitionist as well ,but Ivory trade and outfitting slavers still continued.
In every other country in the world slavery was ended peacefully. Galpin Faust the Ivy leaguer of course brings up the execution of United States colored troops at Fort Pillow. However US: Troops Also Massacred Surrendered Confederate Troops at Fort Blaky,.in letters might US: troops collected by James McPherson they brag about killing Confederate soldier without mercy. You will never hear that in a documentary, on PBS.
Andersonville was brought up but they did not mention that there were mortality rates higher in federal POW camps for Confederate and they were not blockaded so they had plenty of food and medicine. In fact a house resolution was passed to treat all Confederate prisoners as they found their prisoners at Andersonville.Lincoln signed the resolution by Gen. Dan Siegel told him flat out it wouldn’t do them any good that the Confederates couldn’t feed themselves,.
Rebel prisoners in our hands are to be subjected to a treatment finding its parallels only in the conduct of savage tribes and resulting in the death of multitudes by the slow but designed process of starvation and by mortal diseases occasioned by insufficient and unhealthy food and wanton exposure of their persons to the inclemency of the weather….Congressional Globe, 38th Congress, 2nd session, 1/24/1865, pg. 381
Lincoln was notified by his own general, Dan Sickles, that retaliation was useless. Sickles wrote on 8/10/1864, “Apart from the objections which exist to the policy of retaliation, it is at least doubtful whether it would inure to the benefit of our men, for the reason that the enemy are reported to be without the means to supply clothing, medicines and other medical supplies even to their own troops.”…Official Records, Ser. II, Vol. VII, 575.

Probably the most historically hysterical comment made was that by Faust about Confederate widows being neo-Confederates and Lost Causers. They were still Confederates Dreww? And their cause was lost as was their livlihood their sons and husbands. You will never see a documentary about Sherman and his bummers looting and burning their way through the South. Nor will yu hear someone reading his letter to his wife saying that women and children of the Confederacy must be targeted and enemies as well. Nor the fact that both Sherman and Sheridan urged the Prussians to treat the French civilians like they had treated Confederates civilans.
There was no mention either of the fact that a large percentage of United States colored troops were conscripted and sent into battle with little or no training. At all costs the great nobility of Abraham Lincoln and the purity of the cost of free slaves must be perpetuated. Even now it’s historical nonsense. Lincoln himself was a white supremacist as was Gen. Grant, Gen. Sherman, and the vast majority of Union soldiers. What is even more ironic is that this very time the Veterans Administration going against its own policies refusing to provide headstones for the 18,000 Confederate dead buried at Oakwood Cemetery .One numbered marker for every three soldiers is sufficient according to the Veterans Administration. Otherwise, according to the V.A.’s rules a soldier’s name rank and unit should be on the marker.